Psycology of UFO liars

I'd like some input on the Psycology involved in someone lying about a UFO encounter. This thread isn't intended to argue about the proof, evidence
or reality of alien beings or UFOs. But I'd like people from both sides to submit real answers and insight here.

This thread takes into account the fact that "Some" people have lied about seeing ufo's or aliens and being abducted. It also is trying to find
out why some people would lie and also why whole groups of people are seemingly "Not" lying about an encounter or sighting.

1. Why would someone lie about an encounter or sighting or abduction? Is the 15 minutes of fame worth it?
2. What is the psycological profile of someone who would lie about such a thing?
3. How is it that certain people or groups of people pass lie detectors or appear to be telling the truth or even believe that they are telling the
truth?
4. What is the psycology involved in people believing they saw something even if they did not?
5. Why would someone dismiss offhand without any research into an account a person who is seemingly telling the truth?

The reason they make up these stories, is because they want attention and there is an audience for it. The 15 minutes of us here and around the web
talking about them must be worth it. The reason they are usually dismissed is because there are way more of them than anyone credible, not a good
ratio.

I think most of them really do believe they have had an encounter. Some people have overly vivid imaginations combined with a personality disorder
that makes whatever will get them the most attention seem real to them.

So the next question would be concerning the fact that everyone who says that they have had an encounter couldn't possibly be lying, so there has to
be another issue involved if they haven't really seen anything. What is it?
and secondly does everyone who seems to be lying about an encounter fit the general profile of a UFO liar for lack of a better term.

Originally posted by amazing
So the next question would be concerning the fact that everyone who says that they have had an encounter couldn't possibly be lying, so there has to
be another issue involved if they haven't really seen anything. What is it?

There is a very strong tendency when encountering something beyond one's experience to "fill in the blanks". It has nothing to do with lying, it
has nothing to do with sanity. It is what our brains and sensory systems are designed to do. There is also the fact that without some frame of
reference, it is impossible to determine the size, distance, and speed of an object.

Combine the two with the folklore of UFO's and guess what? A 10" balloon 100' in the air can become a huge UFO, at a tremendous altitude, moving at
an incredible speed. I've seen it happen.

I think there are liars, those who did really see something other worldly, and those who saw something that is not other worldly (like a funny shaped
balloon) but mistook it for something else.

I don't think why they lie matters, probably for the same reasons people lie about a lot of things, particularly things of a mysterious nature.

Liars who become hoaxers puzzle me much more. Some of them put so much time and effort into hoaxes they'll never make money off of, and many hoaxers
that use the internet remain anonymous so it's not like they're experiencing the "fame".

May just be boredom and the feeling of "ha! I cant beleive that these saps are eating it up!". Others are sick and crave attention of any kind,
some are crazy, yet, there is a persistent few, those who have nothing to gain by convincing people of ufos or abduction, have much to lose, but
persist because they are mystified or terrified by what has, or what they think has happened to them.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I think most of them really do believe they have had an encounter. Some people have overly vivid imaginations combined with a personality disorder
that makes whatever will get them the most attention seem real to them.

Exactly what I was going to say. Beat me to it.

I don't think many abductees lie about their experiences at all. Whether the experiences actually happened or not, though, is another question.

I have no doubt they believe. Some even pass lie-detector tests. That doesn't prove the events happened, however, because a fragile or damaged mind
can construct memories.

Thanks for all the replies. Another question comes to mind. What of the seemingly normal adult with no child hood trauma who comes up with an
amazing story of either abduction or a close encounter of some kind. He/She passes or would pass a lie detector test-no other trauma(either emotional
or other can be found) and perhaps there's even a witness or two as well. If you were interviewing this person and the witness what would you do
what would you ask...what would you be thinking?

1. Why would someone lie about an encounter or sighting or abduction? Is the 15 minutes of fame worth it?

To lie, is to deliberately decieve. So you are asking why someone would intentionally fabricate a sighting or encounter? I have asked myself this very
same question, and in most cases it isn't the notoriety essentially, I would imagine it is their own perceived ability to receive some material gain
from their story. The other reason I imagine would be for these people to be esteemed within a small subset of society - the ufology world, and even
smaller group of believers or followers that might feed their self-perception of being 'special' or 'different'.

2. What is the pyschological profile of a someone who would lie about such a thing?

For someone who is deliberately deceptive, who is hoaxing or lying for their own ends:
"The successful con artist is generally suave, smooth, smart, accomplished and sophisticated. He doesn't have to resort to violence like a gangster.
Con artists consider themselves to be the princes of the criminal fraternity - a cut above the other criminals on the street. In fact, he does not
consider himself to be a criminal at all. Profile of A Con Artist

3. How is it that certain people or groups of people pass lie detectors or appear to be telling the truth or even believe that they are telling the
truth?

"The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to
know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be
detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example
of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for
example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about
it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.
The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot
cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on
this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through." How To Pass a
Polygraph

4. What is the psycology involved in people believing they saw something even if they did not?

What is the pyschology behind people believing they saw something? - My uneducated guess would be, that they saw something. Even if they did not? It's kind of a catch 22; how could you see something you did not see? Or perhaps how could you believe you have seen
something you did not see?
Perhaps the real question is why would someone believe they have seen something when there was nothing there at all?
Hallucinations, possibly for a variety of reasons. Psychiatric, drug-induced or alcohol related, or perhaps just a misidentification of something
mundane or terrestrial.

5. Why would someone dismiss offhand without any research into an account a person who is seemingly telling the truth?

Why would someone chose to do anything or not do anything? It is entirely related to who people are themselves, and what interests them. This is quite
a grossly generalised question, begging your pardon.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.